Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Can we please discuss...
the L.A. USD banning flavored milks in school?
So many of my FB friends and family are getting upset about this and I just can't understand their perspective. Or the perspective of anyone opposed to this decision.
For those who don't want to sort through the article, some school districts around the country (including L.A.) have decided to get rid of flavored milk in their schools because they contain the same amount of sugar as the same amount of soda/coke/pop. The opposition (the professional portion anyway) says this is a terrible choice because it will prevent the children from getting proper levels of calcium.
I personally cannot understand that logic. It's like saying taking away chicken nuggets will prevent them from getting adequate protein.
I get that kids are picky and I can't expect them to cheerfully dig in to a quinoa and roasted veggie salad... and that isn't what is being proposed. Any calcium those kids are "missing out on" in their flavored milk can be made up for in a serving of calcium enriched OJ or no sugar added, natural yogurt.
Call me crazy, but I really don't see what there is to be upset about with the removal of flavored milk. Yes, it tastes good. Yes, the kids like it. However, it isn't something that they should be drinking on a daily basis and taught to view as a healthy way to get their daily calcium needs. Just like they shouldn't have ice cream or candy every day.
Am I missing some important piece of the puzzle here, or does the removal of the milk make as much sense as I think it does?
Re: Can we please discuss...
No, I didn't see that. Is that in a public school?
It makes me wonder how they could possibly afford to serve meals that cater to every food intolerance/allergy within the school. Are they serving all gluten free, dairy free, artificial coloring and flavoring free, sugar free, and low carb foods? If not then they will have a big fat lawsuit on their hands.
I can maybe see requiring all students to bring lunch from home, but I can't get behind forbidding anyone to eat anything other than what the cafeteria serves. That's nuts.
the wedding | the blog
I've seen that and think that it's utterly ridiculous.
I would have no problem with a school only serving regular milk and small water bottles, or 100% juice. The calcium can be made up in individual servings of cheese (think Babybel or string cheese) and yogurt, which kids eat plenty of already.
So many children who buy lunch throw most of it away. Perhaps if they were able to bring food from home they would eat more of it.
Did anyone see the episodes of Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution while it was set in LAUSD? Ugh, it made them look horrible.
Holy tap dancing Jesus... this kind of thing makes my brain hurt. I understand not being pleased with the information, but saying it's inappropriate and blaming the school is only further hurting that child by refusing to deal with the problem.
the wedding | the blog
I saw that! That district really did look terrible. From what I understand they have gotten a new superintendant though who has been much more willing to work with Jamie on improving the lunches and establishing positive nutrition programs.
the wedding | the blog
BMI actually shouldn't be used to discuss a child's weight/health until they're done growing (and then, it should always be discussed along with other things-i.e. measurements, body fat %, etc.), so I can understand the frustration with that. HOWEVER, if a child is obviously obese/overweight, you can tell that without using BMI.
School lunches are difficult things to deal with. While your "wealthier" suburban schools are most likely able to afford healthier options, your inner city/poverty area schools aren't going to have those finances. They have to do the best with what they've got. And even then, I'm pretty sure most schools are required to have X number of calories in their meals, because there are many kids in the system who only get food at school. It's got to be tricky to meet that requirement for the needy children while encouraging everyone to make healthy choices/not over eat, all the while having to abide by a strict, limited budget. Makes me so glad I'm not in the cafeteria business.
And, to top it all off, many PE classes are being passed over so the kids can get more instructional time in so that they can perform well come testing time. Good test scores = more $$ for the school districts.
The BMI gets used around here starting in pre-school, but it's a required part of screening (the state requires the information...not sure what they do with it). From my understanding, it can only screen in children who are overweight or obese but it doesn't give "healthy weight" scales like it would for adults.
I wish the school district had the money to then do something about the scores....add more gym time for those students, work with parents on nutrition, etc. but we're in a struggling district. Maybe one day! If nothing else, I hope that the parents talk to their doctor about the concern.
I could be wrong, but I believe that *most* school lunch funding comes from the state, not the district (at least here in CA).
It is a lot of work to create healthy lunches, and unfortunately I don't think some districts are willing to put in the effort. Others, from what I'm reading lately here in the papers, are taking advantage and are logging free student lunches for students who aren't even enrolled.
A few years ago our district received a grant from Mariott to work with their chefs to come up with new menus with loads of organic and whole wheat meals. Lunches skyrocketed to $4.50 to accommodate these extra costs. Kids stopped buying lunch b/c they didn't like it as much, and you should have seen the ruckus it caused when they changed from the local pizza place once a week to homemade whole wheat dough...
A couple of things...
I have a student who has dairy, egg and nut allergies. She gets school lunch every day. They make substitutions as appropriate.
I work in a poor district and almost all kids get school lunch and they are much healthier than what we remember. All whole grains, fresh fruits and veggies -- no canned. All Kindergarteners get white milk, but the upper grades do have the option of chocolate. Our students also get a fresh fruit or veggie snack every day.
Our food director has earned grants for the fresh fruits and veggies, but other than that it is all federally and state funded.
Jenny McCarthy = Former Playmate and MTV host
Pediatrician = Doctor with extensive experience and education on children.
Bumpies = Don't get me started!
I know who I get my health advice from!
What are you looking at?
I think this is stemming from Jamie Oliver's show. He's been making a big push for people to try and get flavored milk out of schools for pretty much the reasons already discussed - and the fact that it has as much sugar as a candy bar. A lot of schools have been talking about getting rid of it because of the campaign.
If you watch the show though, Jamie was at a conference and the milk industry was doing a workshop on how great flavored milks were because more kids were drinking them so they were getting more calcium. It's the marketing BS that keeps them around.
I think the biggest problem is that America has forgotten how to eat in general. Fast food shouldn't be a food group, but for so many people it is. And there's a huge focus on particle food science - ie, calcium is good for you! - but there's no strong evidence it really works like that. Take milk, for instance, there's such a push to switch to low fat milk because of the obseity epidemic but research has shown the stuff they take out to make it lower fat works with your body to help you absorb the good nutrients in it - so with lower fat milk you're not necessarily getting all the benefits. If, as a society, we could get back to cooking real meals from real ingredients we'd all be better off.
Kate's Recipe Box || Relatively Bookish
I think it is awesome that your school district is able to provide quality food options like this on such a limited budget. However, I don't think this is the way it is around the country as a whole.
Kids around here get french fries, tater tots, fried chicken, and pizza at least twice per week. When they aren't being seved that it's burgers and chicken nuggets. The veggies are "southern style" which means they are cooked with ham and pork fat until they are basically a greenish goo.
Fresh fruit is an option for snack, but so is ice cream... every day. Given the choice, the kids will pick ice cream every time.
the wedding | the blog
I have to preface this by saying I really don't know much of anything about this or how lunches work in a public school, but my first reaction to this was to be irritated that the school is telling the kid what he can or can't eat. Basically, as a parent, I would be mad that if I say it is ok for my kid to have chocolate milk, then its ok.
I really have no idea if that's the issue or not, but that was my first reaction to reading the OP (not the article, didn't read that).
I get this perspective and think that's probably why a lot of parents are mad. And a kid having chocolate milk occasionally is fine. A parent either allowing their child to have chocolate milk EVERY DAY and/or trusting their child will pick plain milk over chocolate or strawberry is not going to fly.
Our school districts have options more like Maria's. It's nice.
I don't see why all these kids can't just be offered water and only water. That's all they *need* for lunch at school...
Yeah, I agree.
It's really a shame on the parents for not teaching their kids to have a better understanding of what to choose. Granted a 5-6 year old won't/can't understand and make that choice, but then maybe there should be some kind of option to allow the parents to specify what beverage the child should have.
Okay, first of all I'm late to the game, but I have a completely different opinion and I'm home alone, should be cleaning and bored out of my mind so I'm going to post anyways.
I think it is kind of ridiculous. Personally I can't stand the taste of regular milk. I just can't, so I drink chocolate milk instead, and since I do, there is no way I am going to be able to expect Wyatt to drink just white milk. Sure, I'm going to give it to him, but if he watches me drink chocolate milk and wants it over white milk, I'm not going to say no. Chocolate milk is better than no milk at all. Here the recommendation is to give the kids milk, whether it is flavored or not... last time I checked anyways
This is a link to Health Canada's guidlines, chocolate milk is in there right below white milk: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/food-guide-aliment/choose-choix/milk-lait/serving-portion-eng.php
That being said, I don't work in a school, I don't deal with this on a day to day basis and I don't see what goes on. What I do think though, is that the system seems very impressionable if the issue of flavored milk is being brought up only after some celebrity chef has a problem with it. I also don't think that it is the school's job to control the kids' diets, not to mention the fact that it isn't going to change what the kids are getting at home.